The Great Leftist Manpower Shortage

“He who controls the past controls the future,” Orwell once said. And Orwell would know. His faction in the Spanish Civil War was purged in 1937. The Party Line said that this was because this POUM was, in fact, not a Marxist Party as the “M” stands for, but in fact they were secret Trotskyite Fascists plotting to help Franco. And how did the Liberal Media in Orwell’s home country of England react to this patently ridiculous assertion? Why they ate it right up and amplified it through their own outlets. Just like Liberal Media journalists for the New York Times were printing stories about Stalin’s wonderful workers’ paradise while the Man of Steel was deliberately starving tens of millions of Ukrainians and Georgians to death. But that is the stuff of another blog piece. Nothing has changed between the 1930s and Dan Rather’s forged documents and Jayson Blair’s politically correct fairy tales. The things Orwell wrote about in “1984” had ALREADY HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING, barring a few items that were high-tech in 1948. His representation of Ministry of Truth was as much a shot at the Liberal Media outlets of the West as it was at Moscow’s propaganda machine in the days of Stalin.

I have noticed that the recent propaganda by the Left often stops Conservatives who love this country in their tracks. They claim that the Left was the savior of black people and of women and that to disagree with them is to be a woman hating racist. It’s hard to beat an enemy who can hang that around your neck. The weenie of it is that they don’t deserve to be the legends that they are in their own mind. Let us examine the real history of Civil Rights for blacks and women and see how their claims stack up.

It is important to remember that the traditional opponent of slavery was the Republican Party. At its formation in the 1850s, Abolitionism was one of its main raisons d’etre. The Democratic Party, conversely, was the champion of the slave master and the traditional opponent of any civil rights measure. And when called on this, Democrats do not deny this. They merely attempt to spin these facts away by saying that in the 1860s it was Liberal Republicans fighting for abolition and Conservative Democrats championing slavery. However, the fact of the matter is, that from the days of the 1850s until today, the Republicans were always the Party of Free Markets, Traditional Judeo-Christian Morals and staunch Americanism. In the 1860s, as today, Democrats called the Republicans the “Party of the Rich.” From that day to this, the Democrats have always been the so-called “Party of the Poor.” The Democrats have always had a Leftist appeal.

No, in fact, the Democratic demagogues of the 19th century frequently beat the drum of helping poor whites against the rich Republican capitalists who were allowing blacks to “take their jobs away.” the democratic base in the late 19th century was the South and the poor, white inner city dwellers who were used as muscle by Democrat Machine bosses like Boss Tweed of New York, whose corrupt practices were proverbial.

So why the change? Why did the Party which staunchly opposed civil rights suddenly change its tune? Well, those poor white inner-city dwellers so well dramatized in “Gangs of New York” began moving to the suburbs after 1945. Many of FDR’s supporters in the 1930s and 1940s voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s. The urban bosses were bleeding constituents. In the South too, as a previously non-existent Middle Class began to grow, so too did a nascent Republican Party. The Democrats were losing bodies fast and they needed to replace them. The Blacks were available. So the Machine Bosses who lynched blacks in the 1920s suddenly became their white knights in the 1960s and 1970s. Bear in mind that Governor George Wallace, the man who stood on the steps of the University of Alabama in 1962 defending white supremacy, was the black man’s “champion” a little more than ten years later. The Left did not have their hearts grow three sizes overnight for black people.

This change was pretty much worldwide for socialism (let’s face it people, the Democratic Party is part of the World Socialist Movement and has been for at least 75 years, if not more). Russia becoming the first Communist country in 1917 was an accident. They had wanted Germany first, then France and England and outward from there. The lingua franca of the Communist Party until 1941 was German. After 1917, they had hoped that Germany would become the second Communist country. Communism and Socialism looked towards Western Europe. But, like their American comrades, they too had a manpower shortage. Germany, after its invasion of Russia was crushed, got itself flattened, and the Communists no longer looked to it the way they once did in Marx’s day. England and France united with the USA to stop Communism. Seven million Soviets died during WWII, while the US lost maybe 5 percent as many. Its new Eastern European satellites had been more heavily devastated than the free nations of Western Europe. Russia needed more bodies allied to it. It was then that World Socialism went from being a solely White European thing that cared nothing for the Third World to suddenly being the champion of the downtrodden masses of Afro-Asia. It is ironic how many brown-skinned dwellers of the Tropic Regions worship at the altar of Karl Marx, who believed them inferior and not worth his trouble.

Thus we can be certain that the Left had no great love for dark-skinned people. They merely needed their votes and pretended to care in return. One thing people need to wake up and realize is that welfare states are never created to benefit the recipients of the largesse, but to benefit the politicians who use other peoples’ money to show how “generous” they are.

Given what history teaches us about the Left and its relations with people of color, Conservatives need never allow Liberals to get away with propagandizing that anyone is a racist who disagrees with them. Liberals have always thrived on race riots, whether the rioters were black or white.

Examining the history of the Womens’ Movement gives us a similar story. Any Liberal who asserts that anyone who disagrees with their asinine policies is a sexist needs to have it pointed out to them that Susan B. Anthony, a Conservative Republican, was probably turning over in her grave at the notion of so-called Feminists destroying the lives of young women for the sake of a corrupt old lecher like Bill Clinton who used women like toilet paper, the exact kind of man she spent her life fighting against. Let us not make the common mistake of confusing the narcissistic harpies who hijacked the Womens’ Movement in the 1960s with the real Womens’ Movement of the 19th and early 20th century. The suffragettes were not the modern feminists who think that the universe revolves around their vagina. They were, most of them, deeply religious and did a lot of good for society as a whole. In some societies, the staunchest opposition to women getting the vote came from Communists, Socialists and other Left Wingers. Here in America, it was the Conservatives who got women the vote. In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed, Conservative Republicans were in the majority in Congress and the State Legislatures. What is even more telling is that the 1920 elections, the first with female participation, was a total Republican blowout and the beginning of a decade of complete Republican dominance. And they weren’t Liberal Republicans. Herbert Hoover was of this generation of the GOP.

The Dung Merchants of the Liberal Media have convinced a large segment of the population that working for an oil company is a greater crime than leaving one’s concubine on the bottom of a river while swimming one’s fat ass to safety. And they have done so with the willing connivance of the hypocrites of the so-called Womens’ Movement. Americans, don’t ever let one of those two-faced talkers-out-both-sides-of-their-mouth ever take any moral high ground on you. People whose main fight is for the right to put babies into ovens don’t have the right.

“He who controls the past controls the future.” Orwell said a mouthful. The Left successfully manipulates the perceptions of America’s past and in so doing leverage considerable control over our future. Being Liberal really means loving European and Asian socialism and hating everything American that stands in its way. Being Conservative means loving America and wanting to protect it from this creeping socialism. It is incumbent on every Conservative to learn their history so that the Orwellian Left cannot control our future by controlling our past. We can either do that, or we can let the Dan Rathers of the world “educate” us.

Studying history is a political act. In my opinion, a citizen who is ignorant of history is unfit to exercise the right to vote.

Agree on the whole, but please don't insult the memory of Mary Jo.

Cheers!

4 posted on 12/27/2006 4:41:39 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

"Agree on the whole, but please don't insult the memory of Mary Jo.
""The Dung Merchants of the Liberal Media have convinced a large segment of the population that working for an oil company is a greater crime than leaving one’s concubine on the bottom of a river while swimming one’s fat ass to safety."

Cheers!"

Very Well. It was not aimed at her so much, as at him. And not that it changes anything, but imagine what she would have said of him if we interviewed her the day before she died. She probably thought he was a god.......

Nonetheless, I mean no insult to her.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.